Yes, but that's only part of the point. Thunderbolt ports cannot be considered part of the spec without the ability to push graphics as well as data. Therefore the ports have to be connected to SOME sort of GPU, and that's either going to be a chip integrated on the logic board or the Thunderbolt ports will be on the GPU in a PCIe slot (but that's not allowed, as far as I know).

OR, the third option, whatever GPU you order from Apple is built into the computer and non-upgradable. That gives users the power of that card usable through their logic board Thunderbolt ports.

That is one of my concerns with this refresh. I want to get a Thunderbolt Display, but unless they come out with a brand new graphics card that supports Thunderbolt, at best I will be pushing HD3000 through the port (isn't HD4000 only in Ivy Bridge?) . At the same time I am also considering getting a less pixel dense monitor so I might be able to some light gaming (not a priority, but would be nice with some of the offerings from the App Store).

I would love a 4K display, but again I don't see too many GPU's capable of taking advantage of it right now or even being able to push a decent frame rate. I guess that is my reasoning for wanting the Mac Pro, at least there is some expandability built into there.

I think it depends on a few things such as what you do. Overall the 1,1 and 3,1 machines aged quite well even if I wouldn't suggest one today, but the 3,1 still does well enough in heavily threaded functions. Imacs worry me at times because there are the people who end up with chronic problems, and of course I hate the lack of machine access. If they debut a decent machine this time in the sub 3k realm, I'll have to buy one. Even apart from raw computing power, there are things that I like. They're made for higher duty cycles. I can populate them with drives, keep gpus up to date if necessary, and they have more ports. I don't buy the thunderbolt display or expensive TB docking stations. It erodes any savings against a tower in the longer term.

I agree and machine access is also important to myself. As for other comments about case design I'm more than happy with the current appearance and form factor. Still simply breath taking every time I look at it.

I mainly use my Mac for picture and video editing but my old Mac is feeling the strain and takes an age to encode etc. The only issue I have is the Airport signal as I need to turn it off and on to pick up my network. I'm convinced this issue only came when I upgraded to Leapoard.

Yes, but that's only part of the point. Thunderbolt ports cannot be considered part of the spec without the ability to push graphics as well as data. Therefore the ports have to be connected to SOME sort of GPU, and that's either going to be a chip integrated on the logic board or the Thunderbolt ports will be on the GPU in a PCIe slot (but that's not allowed, as far as I know).

OR, the third option, whatever GPU you order from Apple is built into the computer and non-upgradable. That gives users the power of that card usable through their logic board Thunderbolt ports.

Thunderbolt supports accepting video from a standalone graphics card which is multiplexed and output on the thunderbolt port. How do you think they output the discreet GPU to thunderbolt in an iMac for example?!? Also take some models of MBP which has both on-chip graphics and discrete switchable gpu, both which work fine out the thunderbolt port. Go look at Wikipedia search for thunderbolt and read about it. Look at the diagram which shows this.

Apple often is not the first to use new or revolutionary technology. OTOH, they sometimes are the first to use new things in completely new ways (Mac mini is one example).

I could see this transpiring: When the component changes you cite become pervasive enough, Apple could design an all new Mac Pro based on those changes that would allow for a much smaller chassis, rack-mountability, etc. Not sure if enough of those component changes have happened yet for a completely new Mac Pro to appear in 2012. We'll see.

In a nut shell that is the question, has technology moved far enough to justify a smaller machine. I'd say yes but it will be very interesting to see what Apple does.

Personally I will be disappointed to see the new Mac Pro come in the same old case. It would be an example of Apple thumbing its nose at desktop users again. Over the last few years we have seen significant technological improvements to the laptops, it is about time Apple got serious about the desktop. As stated elsewhere the entire desktop line up has bee stagnet for years.

In a nut shell that is the question, has technology moved far enough to justify a smaller machine. I'd say yes but it will be very interesting to see what Apple does.
Personally I will be disappointed to see the new Mac Pro come in the same old case. It would be an example of Apple thumbing its nose at desktop users again. Over the last few years we have seen significant technological improvements to the laptops, it is about time Apple got serious about the desktop. As stated elsewhere the entire desktop line up has bee stagnet for years.

It will surprise me if it's not on a life support R&D budget. My prediction is they do something with the design in 2014 given that the board should last through Ivy Bridge E. Intel tends to update workstation chipsets on tock cycles. I still think your ideas are cool though.

That is rather sad. If no one pointed it out and it was an obscure error that might be one thing but this is a rather substantial accuracy problem. More so it seems to indicate a complete lack of knowledge with respect to the technology and industry.

I realize as a news + rumors site there is a fine line with the respect to news and rumors. Even rumors though need to reflect a bit of knowledge or understanding of what is being discussed. Frankly it looks like just about anybody could induce questionable reporting by these bloggers, they just look gullible.

Quote:

Originally Posted by melgross

We can mention it, but we don't actually have influence. The info in this article has been taken from other sources, as is the info from a number of other articles. If the info from the source is wrong, it will be repeated elsewhere. This site being one of those elsewheres.
I'm amazed at how often all the world of computer reporting is wrong. Many errors in PcMag, for example, and they're not by any means alone. In some tech sites such as ArsTechnica and AnandTech, if the author has made a factual error, and a poster notes it, it will be corrected. But that's very unusual elsewhere, I've noticed. Once the article is posted, no one reads the posts to see if an error has been caught. That's a shame, but it's become much more common in recent years.
It's one reason why I still don't believe that much of what we read on the internet is reporting in the journalistic sense. While news papers make mistakes, it's far more common on the I telnet. One reason is that there's simply no fact checking going on. That eliminated most of the bloggers, and many of the web sites from my consideration as journalists, despite what the courts have said.
Even here, I find it annoying. I would like to see posting in an article regarding corrections of errors. But it's no better, or worse, here than most other places, I find.

I can't agree. The Mac Pro is one of the best designed workstations I have seen. I don't see any wasted space. It was designed for excellent airflow, which it has. If you are looking at areas that are designed to be open for the purpose of that airflow, and are assuming that it's wasted space, and can be eliminated, well, that's just wrong.

I have to disagree with this airflow point. The current Mac Pro case design is left over from the G5 days. Back then it had to contain massive heat sink, ducting and even some plumbing. I'm not at all convinced that an engineer designing for thermal performance would layout the Mac Pro the way it is today.

I don't understand and this smaller case thing here. I can only suspect that those wanting one don't really need a Mac Pro. Mine has a 950 watt power supply. These machines are often used with a pro level graphics card, or even two, that consume 250 watts of power each. In addition they have more slots that can use more power. In addition they have 4 official drive bays, plus a free bay under the DVD drive at the front.
This all uses power, and requires a big machine for full length boards. If you don't NEED a Mac Pro, then don't get one. Get an iMac, they are very good machines, and will satisfy the needs of most people.
But if you need 32GB or more of EEC RAM, 2 workstation level processors, and a pro level graphics card or two, plus other specialized hardware, then you need a Mac Pro. And that's goi g to be a big machine. Indeed, it's been criticized as being too small, with not enough slots. Some workstations in its class have 8.

Out of curiosity, how well will the suspected new Mac Pro stack up as a gaming machine? It's not what I want one for but it always fascinated me that my 8 core Mac Pro wasn't all that good compared to my MBP at even basic stuff such as Second Life yet smoked the MBP at video rendering and multi tasking.

From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've owned them all.Long on AAPL so biased"Google doesn't sell you anything, Google just sells you!"

I have to disagree with this airflow point. The current Mac Pro case design is left over from the G5 days. Back then it had to contain massive heat sink, ducting and even some plumbing. I'm not at all convinced that an engineer designing for thermal performance would layout the Mac Pro the way it is today.

I really don't mind the case, but this is one of those things where people will say it looks modern until the day it changes. A few months later it would look completely dated. Dell updated theirs considerably. The mac pro is closest to the T5600 in available configurations, but people often mistakenly compare it to the T7600 which is much larger. The same goes for HP. The one closest in size to the mac pro is made to accommodate more stuff internally. The mac pro overall is designed like a mid level workstation. The largest ones can typically take quite a few drives. It has been missing a few common features such as the ability to accept a larger number of drives if 2.5" drives are used, but I do think it's probably on a low R&D budget. While I don't mind the size or configuration, there are other perfectly valid designs that run at low decibel levels within spec using similar cpu configurations.

That is rather sad. If no one pointed it out and it was an obscure error that might be one thing but this is a rather substantial accuracy problem. More so it seems to indicate a complete lack of knowledge with respect to the technology and industry.
I realize as a news + rumors site there is a fine line with the respect to news and rumors. Even rumors though need to reflect a bit of knowledge or understanding of what is being discussed. Frankly it looks like just about anybody could induce questionable reporting by these bloggers, they just look gullible.

Well, officially, bloggers are journalists, and so what they say is supposedly considered to be news, and information, just as it is from the NY Times and WSJ. So why question their accuracy? I mean, after all, they've been sued by Apple and others, and won their cases. So who are we to question that? If they come out with "information", it must be true, right? And so when sites such as AI quote them, they are quoting people who are entirely professional in what they do, and who have outstanding reputations for honesty and accuracy.

I have to disagree with this airflow point. The current Mac Pro case design is left over from the G5 days. Back then it had to contain massive heat sink, ducting and even some plumbing. I'm not at all convinced that an engineer designing for thermal performance would layout the Mac Pro the way it is today.

It's just the shell that's left over. The case is the entire unit that everything goes into. That‘s been radically changed several times. The thermal engineering is excellent. Mi e remains cool, and is the quietest workstation I've ever used, and that's a lot.

Out of curiosity, how well will the suspected new Mac Pro stack up as a gaming machine? It's not what I want one for but it always fascinated me that my 8 core Mac Pro wasn't all that good compared to my MBP at even basic stuff such as Second Life yet smoked the MBP at video rendering and multi tasking.

The Mac Pro is designed for other programs than games. If you want a gaming machine you need one with a higher CPU speed and fewer cores, as most games gain little from 4 cores and nothing from more than that. Then, you need a top graphics card. That's where the Mac Pro falls down. When it first comes out, it usually has a card option that about two thirds up the ladder, but not a top card (not talking about the expensive pro cards). But then they fail to give us newer cards as they come out, so people buy PC cards and flash them which may not work with every feature or need.

It's just not really a gaming machine, though it can work pretty well at it, if you buy the right one.

Originally Posted by melgross
The Mac Pro is designed for other programs than games. If you want a gaming machine you need one with a higher CPU speed and fewer cores, as most games gain little from 4 cores and nothing from more than that. Then, you need a top graphics card. That's where the Mac Pro falls down. When it first comes out, it usually has a card option that about two thirds up the ladder, but not a top card (not talking about the expensive pro cards). But then they fail to give us newer cards as they come out, so people buy PC cards and flash them which may not work with every feature or need.
It's just not really a gaming machine, though it can work pretty well at it, if you buy the right one.

I'm hoping for new Mac Pros just so I can get an updated graphics card. Sure, for a few games, but I've run across some beautiful terrain generators for which a 4870 just can't do justice.

Wow that statement is so wrong. And so reeks of someone making up for something else being too small.

A workstation only needs 'macho' in terms of power. Physical size and look are beside the point.

Such machines are more accurately described as "deskside" rather than "desktop" computers (whether a true workstation or merely a tower). Hardly anyone actually puts them on the desk where they take up useful space to no good end. They are put where convenient and appearance really does not matter much so long as it is a function device.

What is it with you people? Isn't it obvious that Apple isn't interested in a low volume model like that? Give it up already!

You're still missing the point.

The Xserve was a low volume machine and therefor was cut. The Mac Pro is a low volume machine (and there were concerns it would be cut). Why not make a few minor modifications that make the machine serve both purposes? Now you have a machine that is still potentially low volume, but you've increased sales slightly because it can fit in another market.

Your point about killing two birds with one stone is well taken, if Apple had any intention of bothering to continue the product line. Like many others, I doubt the Mac Pro, however configured, is in Apple's long term plans. If the rumored Mac Pro update is not the last hurrah, it is not far from it. History has shown that Apple can not be expected to update the platform with new graphics cards & etc in between major refreshes, if there is to be one, and so many people are on the banks of the Rubicon contemplating crossing it. Once crossed, there really is no turning back. Even a hack is not a long term solution as once the Mac Pro is EOL'd, OS X will certainly leave the necessary code behind in the trash heap of history.

Apple have had plenty of opportunities to put out the word in one way or another that they intend to continue the Mac Pro line, but have not done so. Reading the tea leaves, if this is not the end of the road, the end of the road is just around the corner.

I am happy Apple is updating the Mac Pro. My Mac Pro is only 3 years old and runs well so need for me to get this version, but I want that option in the future and I am glad I will be able to upgrade when needed. I understand the need to have a high end Mac Pro with as many slots for Ram and as many CPU's and cores possible for those people that demand every ounce of performance they can get. What I don't understand is why Apple insists on putting a Xeon in the low end model that only includes one CPU. Aren't the high performance ivy bridge Core i7 as fast if not faster than Xeon when you only have one? Not to mention a lot cheaper.

You're looking at it wrong.

The E5 replaces the 5000 series Xeons. Intel just so happens to make 1, 2, and 4 processor models of the E5, where as before they didn't. (Though the DP's could be used in UP configuration)

The E3 is the rebadged i7/i5 with ECC support, that's it.

If you look at Apple's previous Mac Pro offerings, they offered UP and DP, using 5000 series processors, so logically they'll use E5-1xxx and E5-2xxx parts, in up to 8 core's. They could make a 4x4 or 4x8 (eg 32 cores) system if they wanted to. But past a certain point you're no longer selling workstations, but high end servers. Ask people who build data centers how they pick parts, and why the Xsan/Xserve wasn't a successful product. They pick the cheapest parts for the power envelope. So in data centers where space and power is a premium, building a 4x8 system makes sense, where neither are a premium, putting 42 1U's with a single or dual processor is more economical since the $/core is cheaper.

People who use MacMini's as data center servers, are out of their mind if they're running anything business-critical on them. It wouldn't make sense to except where space and power are a premium, and reliability is not a priority. Those are not enterprise hard drives in the mini and apple time capsule, and they don't come with ECC memory (apparently there is exactly one mobile cpu that can.) Though a Macmini is probably the cheaper than an Atom-based 1U server and you can fit 2 of them in their space.

Looks like the current MP is limited to 48 or 96 megs of usable ram. I assume the next gen being quad channel will up that to 64 and 128? Does that mean still just four ram slots on the base model or eight slots on all machines? Four slots on a $2400 machine always seemed dumb to me.

OWC just came out with a way to get 64 - 128GB, in the current 8,12 core Mac Pro (2009 & 2010).

Ivy Bridge WILL be in the new Pros, it's better at voltage, has MUCH better thru put, supports more cores, and to that guy who said there is no Xeon version of Ivy Bridge he's wrong, too

The new E3 Xeons are Ivy Bridge. They are unsuitable unless Apple really is planning to introduce a micro-server in a rack mountable case. The 6 and 8 core E5 Xeons that are likely to be in any new Mac Pro model are definitely Sandy Bridge unless Intel has planned a big surprise announcement for WWDC.

The Xserve was a low volume machine and therefor was cut. The Mac Pro is a low volume machine (and there were concerns it would be cut). Why not make a few minor modifications that make the machine serve both purposes? Now you have a machine that is still potentially low volume, but you've increased sales slightly because it can fit in another market.

Like a toaster and refrigerator? TS put it way better, what was that, a toasterator? No, a... darn! TS, please!

That is rather sad. If no one pointed it out and it was an obscure error that might be one thing but this is a rather substantial accuracy problem. More so it seems to indicate a complete lack of knowledge with respect to the technology and industry.
I realize as a news + rumors site there is a fine line with the respect to news and rumors. Even rumors though need to reflect a bit of knowledge or understanding of what is being discussed. Frankly it looks like just about anybody could induce questionable reporting by these bloggers, they just look gullible.

Quote:

Originally Posted by melgross

Well, officially, bloggers are journalists, and so what they say is supposedly considered to be news, and information, just as it is from the NY Times and WSJ. So why question their accuracy? I mean, after all, they've been sued by Apple and others, and won their cases. So who are we to question that? If they come out with "information", it must be true, right? And so when sites such as AI quote them, they are quoting people who are entirely professional in what they do, and who have outstanding reputations for honesty and accuracy.

One would expect AI to be accurate and have an eye for detail since they are reporting on Apple, a company that is accurate and has an eye for detail. So when I read a line like: "SATA III/SAS 6-gigabyte-per-second drive connectivity" I don't understand how they can not see this fault. Not a small one, 800% difference. I cannot comprehend, sorry.

The Mac Pro is designed for other programs than games. If you want a gaming machine you need one with a higher CPU speed and fewer cores, as most games gain little from 4 cores and nothing from more than that. Then, you need a top graphics card. That's where the Mac Pro falls down. When it first comes out, it usually has a card option that about two thirds up the ladder, but not a top card (not talking about the expensive pro cards). But then they fail to give us newer cards as they come out, so people buy PC cards and flash them which may not work with every feature or need.

Since this is Apple's only machine that has a swappable graphics card, it would be nice if they grew up enough to allow all PC graphics cards to work, provided the drivers were available. Paying three times the price for a generation old graphics card just because it has the magical Apple ROM on it is insulting.

Of course they could. But how many would they sell? Not too many, I would wager. And therefor, the price would be too high. Then, there's that additional number of SKU's they would have to carry.
It's not worth it.

You mis the point here. A Mac Pro sized well to fit a rack doesn't have to be a rack mount machine from Apples standpoint. Rather it should be easily adaptable either with an Apple kit or third party kit. This relates to my position that the Mac Pro or it's replacement needs to be designed to serve the needs of a wider audience of users. In part that means being adaptable and of more reasonable cost.

In other words Apple needs to take an example from the instrumentation field where many portable or transportable instruments can be mounted in a rack with adapter kits and pretty much serve in that capacity when the need comes up. Mainstream or the bulk of sales may go to portable uses but other uses have the option of integrating the instrument into a system of their choice.

What is important here is that this sort of design bias doesn't have to impact looks negatively or even capability as the Mac Pro can be designed as large as Apple sees fit. I'd suggest though that large is not the way to go and that the bias should be towards half rack sized hardware. Putting two Mac Pros into 3 or 4"U's" of rack space would work out very nice all around. The important thing to realize is that these are not purpose designed rack mount machines but rather chassis designed to be easily adapted for such. It is a design concept that works well for instrumentation as mass production is focused on the most common need.

I concur. There are a lot of technicalities in this article that are flat out wrong. Makes me think the writer was purposely thrown off course by their source
Ivy Bridge WILL be in the new Pros, it's better at voltage, has MUCH better thru put, supports more cores, and to that guy who said there is no Xeon version of Ivy Bridge he's wrong, too

The question is Xeons suitable for a Mac Pro or it's replacement. Right now there is nothing publicly acknowledged for sale that is suitable for such a machine. Intel has spoken repeatable about processors they are working on that would make for very interesting Mac Pros but I've heard nothing about actual releases of theses chips.

Mel I have to ask what is it with you that you can't grasp what is being suggested here? It is pretty simple in reality, the Pro needs to be resized for easy rack mounting. That does not mean that Apple has to market a rack mount machine. All people are asking for is a clean avenue for adapting the case to professional installations when the need arises.

Quote:

Originally Posted by melgross

What is it with you people? Isn't it obvious that Apple isn't interested in a low volume model like that? Give it up already!